OT Added an image to my signature

This is personal preference. I think it's an eyesore, just like animated gif's, but it's just my opinion and I might be wrong.

For some reason its not showing up for me, but I agree with david anyway, they usually take up too much space and are distracting

I don't think it looks too bad. It's not very big and I think that would be the problem.

It's your signature. I'm a little more picky about what goes on top of it...but only a little.

Rock it till you knock it- its all up to you. Obviously, rhyme schemes take precedence over public opinion. But honestly, if you like it, keep it.

If everyone starts doing this, it definitely has the potential to get very annoying. I'd say no but it's not against the rules, so until it is, do whatever you wish.

Love the pic. It is not as bad as some who have signatures that are four or five lines long. Keep it. Bad ass. Shit. Crap. Gosh damn. Hell yeah. and all other yippee statements.

You should have Yost in there.

but I wouldn't use it as a signature. I figure it will get smacked down eventually. There's that whole slippery slope thingy.

who suddenly look over their left shoulder each time you post could lead to some unfortunate lawsuits. You may want to reconsider.

C'mon.

Great, now we've really become Scout over here. Those fuckers are always axing people, "Hey I got a new pic for a sig--it's really rad isn't it?"

It might be an issue on the longer threads with a lot of replies when the comments are hugging the right side of the screen.

We are definitely headed along a Scout/Rivals path if sig pics start cropping up.

Big, fat NO to pictures in sigs.

Someone mentioned it, but slippery mf-ing slope. There's simply no need whatsoever to have a signature with a picture in it. None at all. There's hardly a need for signatures to begin with - we're all Michigan fans. We know the all time wins, winning percentages, nat'l titles, yadda yadda yadda.

Let's keep the space in threads limited to quality discussion - that's what's great about MGoBlog to begin with.

Ugh - people have avatars. That should be enough.

Large pictures in signatures? This is an excellent development! Now, users can now have a picture with like 20 barely clothed women in their signatures instead of the 5 or so that the small avatar limits them to, really showing the world what heterosexual stallions they are!!

I think it's a great picture, and it belongs somewhere, just not in a signature.

I already know that the first few posts I read from "that guy with the really sweet coaches pic in the signature" will cause me to smile. The 75th post with that same signature will make me want to burn the pixels in my computer screen.

We're lucky that no female posters have avatars or sigs with men wearing only an "M" g-string. Boutros (name?) picture is bad enough.

Seriously, it is important to remember that some of us bring up mgoblog with others around who can get offended at pics, so I guess the question (for most) is: would your mom approve of a pic? Remember the "NSFW" designation. If a pic is nsfw, don't use as an avatar or signature.

In general, I don't want things cluttered with ridiculous amounts of pics in avatars and signatures. But I guess what I (or other readers) want doesn't matter . . . do your own thing.

Well, it seems to me that for the most part people are not in favor of an image in the signature. I was on the fence and have now been convinced to get rid of it.